Yesterday the Senate passed yet another short-term continuing resolution (CR), extending funding for the federal government for three more weeks, through April 8. That CR cuts $63 million from NASA, targeting earmarks left over from the agency’s FY2010 spending bill. This CR is likely to be the last such stopgap measure before “the decisive showdown next month” on a final FY11 spending bill, POLITICO reports. That echoes comments made earlier this week by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing about NASA, where she said that “the sentiment on the Hill now” is that this short-term CR would be the last.
While the final FY11 spending bill remains uncertain, lobbying continues about FY2012 appropriations. Space News reported late Thursday that two House members have asked a key lawmaker to protect NASA’s human spaceflight programs from potential budget cuts. Reps. Sandy Adams (R-FL) and Pete Olson (R-TX) asked Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee, which sets overall spending levels for appropriators, to preserve funding for NASA human spaceflight programs, while suggesting that NASA’s Earth science programs, home to what Adams and Olson call an “overabundance of climate change research”, could be ripe for cuts.
This argument for human spaceflight versus Earth sciences isn’t new, but this letter suggests a change in their approach. In a February letter to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA, six House members, including Adams and Olson, call for redirecting Earth science funding to human spaceflight. “With your help, we can reorient NASA’s mission back toward human spaceflight by reducing funding for climate change research and reallocating those funds to NASA’s human spaceflight accounts,” they wrote last month. In the Adams/Olson letter to Ryan, though, they seem to be conceding that NASA’s budget will be cut, and want to direct those cuts away from human spaceflight. “To be clear, we believe that NASA’s budget can be reduced,” they write, as quoted by Space News, arguing that those cuts come from Earth science and not human spaceflight but apparently not suggesting that money be transferred from Earth sciences to human spaceflight.
to preserve funding for NASA human spaceflight programs, while suggesting that NASA’s Earth science programs, home to what Adams and Olson call an “overabundance of climate change researchâ€, could be ripe for cuts
I have been ridiculed on this pages for predicting that this would happen. I tried to grab your attention by referring to NASA’s earth and atmospheric science efforts as ‘hippies in Antarctica’. In the coming months you can expect a huge battle to decide what NASA’s core mission is. Large parts of NASA will be cut or transfered to other agencies. Earth and atmospheric sciences will be first. It is not that these programs are without merit. But they have no business riding the coattails of NASA funding. Budget cannibalism like this will not be restricted to NASA. The left has managed to defy fiscal gravity for 3 years. The 2008 recession has finally reached the US government. Maybe the recovery can finally begin.
“With your help, we can reorient NASA’s mission back toward human spaceflight by reducing funding for climate change research and reallocating those funds to NASA’s human spaceflight accounts,â€
Ain’t gonna happen. The funds will probably be cut alright, but there’ll be no “redirection to HSF accounts.”
When that money’s gone, it’ll be gone to some other GOPer earmark.
“With your help, we can reorient NASA’s mission back toward human spaceflight by reducing funding for climate change research and reallocating those funds to NASA’s human spaceflight accountsâ€
Only problem with that is that, according to the Space Act, that’s not what NASA’s mission is supposed to be. Even the Authorization bill acknowledges this — “The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a balanced and robust set of core missions in science, aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration.”
To the extent that it’s not, and Congress wants it to be, I’m really surprised that there is not a strong push in Congress to formally recharter the agency. That would force Congress to establish what human space flight is actually for, the establishment of which I think would help promote it.
The authorization bill also acknowledges that the agency plays a critical role in Earth and atmospheric sciences. So a major hit on that account would have to be reconciled with that sense of Congress.
Sigh… Adams and Olson (and their staffs) apparently don’t understand the difference between the budget and appropriations committees. Is it too much to ask that our elected representatives have a basic knowledge of how their own legislature works?
The budget committee allocates funding to different budget functions, but it doesn’t determine program funding levels. That’s the domain of the appropriations committee.
The budget committee may determine how much funding the appropriations subcommittee that covers NASA has to work with. But the budget committee doesn’t determine how much of that funding goes to human space flight versus earth science. Heck, the budget committee doesn’t even determine how much funding goes to NASA versus other agencies. That’s all determined by the appropriators.
Regardless of the merits of the Adams/Olson argument, sending a letter to the chair of the budget committee about funding allocations way down at the program level is a useless and empty gesture. He and his committee have no influence at that level.
Holy legislative incompetence, Batman…
“I have been ridiculed on this pages for predicting that this would happen.”
Just because a couple representatives are incompetenly lobbying the wrong committee chairman on an issue doesn’t mean that anything is going to “happen”. Even if they were lobbying the correct House appropriations subcommittee, that doesn’t mean that the subcommittee, the full appropriations committee, or the full House is going to incorporate their argument in an appropriations bill. Or that the Senate or White House are going to agree with said bill.
“I tried to grab your attention by referring to NASA’s earth and atmospheric science efforts as ‘hippies in Antarctica’.”
And you were ignored because painting entire research communities with inaccurate and defamatory titles isn’t an effective argument. Stop trolling and maybe someone will care to listen to your message.
“In the coming months you can expect a huge battle to decide what NASA’s core mission is. Large parts of NASA will be cut or transfered to other agencies.”
Unlikely. Reassigning agency functions typically starts with the White House, as happened under the Eisenhower Administration when the old NACA labs and various military space research facilities were reorganized under the new NASA. Or as happened under the Bush II Administration in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
These types of major realignments almost never start with Congress due to all the parochial interests at play. Congress almost always prefer the status quo and whatever jobs and votes it brings to their districts/states.
“Earth and atmospheric sciences will be first. It is not that these programs are without merit. But they have no business riding the coattails of NASA funding.”
Earth science doesn’t “ride the coattails of NASA funding” In 1958, it was listed as the agency’s first objective in the National Aeronautics and Space Act and it’s been that way ever since:
“(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere…”
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY
Moreover, NASA has been putting up Earth remote sensing satellites longer than it’s been doing almost anything else, including human space flight, astrophysics satellites, or planetary probes.
If you want to argue that Earth science research no longer justifies NASA funding or could be better or more efficiently done elsewhere, then make that argument. But don’t waste this forum’s time with false statements about NASA’s core activities. Read about and comprehend NASA’s charter and historical activities before making idiotic posts out of ignorance.
Sigh…
The bottom line: Ares 1 isn’t viable.
If Ares 1 was viable, then ATK would have entered the medium launch market long ago on its own dime. They didn’t.
Instead, we have $10 billion wasted on a non-viable rocket, and the Utah delegation is holding NASA hostage for more. The current myth ATK is promoting is that increasing CO2 levels have no effect on climate, and that if the tax money/printed money for research into “climate change” were spent on Ares 1, Ares 1 would be viable.
While I do not know the effects of increasing CO2 on climate, it is important generally to determine if there are any, and if so what those effects are, so that any appropriate steps might be taken. In any case, long range and very long range weather forecasts need to be improved.
Also in any case, the amount of cash from canceling “climate research” will not be enough to make the Ares 1 a viable rocket..
The window for DIRECT is rapidly closing, and ATK hopes that it will close, leaving Ares 5 as the only HLV alternative.
It’s not.
It is also apparent that the rest of the US space industry is pretty fed up with ATK’s actions.
By the way, the National Geographic special Sunday night showed the effects of an impact mega-tsunami. If you think the Japanese tsunami is bad, take a minute to consider a tsunami 10-20 times higher, moving 10-20 times faster.
MT – “Earth science doesn’t “ride the coattails of NASA funding†In 1958, it was listed as the agency’s first objective in the National Aeronautics and Space Act and it’s been that way ever since …”
Yes, thanks for the “letter of the law” perspective. You are very good at painting the black and white of Govt. Reality takes a different perspective however with a continuum of shades of gray. Having spent a number of years within the beltway, when NASA comes up in discussion it is the context of HSF. Reality is that NASA is synonymous with HSF. Deep space science and earth observation are 2nd tier objectives in the minds of those that set NASA funding, namely Congress-critters.
“Climate research” is one of those hot button words in the right wing…its one of those things that excites all the no nothings of the GOP, the facts dont matter crowd (No the first battle of the revolutionary war were not in NH and NH is not a caucus state). So to try and kill that is nothing more then a preemptive strike…it plays well back home to Pete’s base …and as Major Tom points out covers the reality that the letter was simply fired off to the wrong place.
The reality is that few of the space porkers now believe that any significant build program at NASA can be held together once the shuttle stops. But they have to look good for the home team…and this letter hits all those buttons.
The strange thing (for me) given how badly Obama’s political shop dropped the ball his first two years…is that so far the Obama folks are winning the budget battle with the house. The Loons in the tea party are getting frustrated, Luntz is telling the House leadership to “not” shut down the government…and the next thing you know we will all be talking about “revenue enhancers”.
As Dr. Smith in Lost in Space would say “oh the pain”
Robert G. Oler
amightywind wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 8:38 am
“I have been ridiculed on this pages for predicting that this would happen”
well I for one started laughing at the post you put up after you had the Falcon 9 second stage spinning out of control…Then there was Col. Flagg…
Robert G. Oler
@dad2059 wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 9:28 am
“Ain’t gonna happen. The funds will probably be cut alright, but there’ll be no “redirection to HSF accounts.—
ABSOLUTELY only the naives think that we’ll get a program to Moon, Mars and beyond. Holly Buzz Lightyear!
“When that money’s gone, it’ll be gone to some other GOPer earmark.”
RIGHT AGAIN. I like upper case today
We’ll have a NASA budget minus Shuttle and that might be it.
HECK IT’S FRIDAY. HAPPY UPPER CASE EVERY ONE.
Moreover, NASA has been putting up Earth remote sensing satellites longer than it’s been doing almost anything else, including human space flight, astrophysics satellites, or planetary probes.
Quoting chapter and verse does not change the fact that earth science research is duplicated across agencies, nor does it protect the programs from substantial cuts. You are not thinking clearly.
If this group were solely committed to Human Space Flight they would urge the Atlas and/or Delta be human rated as fast as possible. A 2016 deadline could easily be achieved and probably will be anyway.
The cost of climate monitoring and protection to businesses is a standard plank with the GOP. Were the cost born elsewhere or by liberals only the concept would be more palatable and maybe even pressed by the GOP.
The latest portion of the Earth rendered uninhabitable this week would we hope give pause to all consider how to keep this planet “human rated” and maybe even become more aggressive about it?
Major Tom: Is it too much to ask that our elected representatives have a basic knowledge of how their own legislature works?
With apologies to Sinclair Lewis: It’s difficult to make a man understand something when his press releases and rhetoric on the stump depend on his not understanding it.
Anyone paying attention will note that the Presidents 2012 budget already canceled two Earth Science missions and descoped a third.
Congress will never take up a re charter of NASA. 1) it would mean they are pro-active, which they aren’t. 2) It would pit allies in other areas of congressional pork against each other….so it’s way to messy for the minimal payoff it would get.
3) it’s easier to deny NASA $ for Earth Sciences, than recharter NASA.
4) The agency and its mission is with the President, not the congress, and so the President would lead this activity – which Obama certainly will not, notwithstanding his hacking of Earth Science in the 2012 budget.
“Having spent a number of years within the beltway, when NASA comes up in discussion it is the context of HSF. Reality is that NASA is synonymous with HSF. Deep space science and earth observation are 2nd tier objectives in the minds of those that set NASA funding, namely Congress-critters.”
Yes, I’m sure Sen. Barbara Mikulski, chair of the Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA appropriations, who has NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, John Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab, and the Space Telescope Science Institute in her state, thinks that Earth observation and space science are “2nd tier objectives” at NASA.
Your “beltway [sic]” knowledge has some major gaps.
FWIW…
“Quoting chapter and verse does not change the fact that earth science research is duplicated across agencies…”
By which agencies and which programs? What other agencies conduct earth science research using space-based remote sensing platforms?
NOAA is an operational agency. Its doesn’t put up new research instruments. Its satellites provide data for weather prediction, land use, and other applications, not for atmospheric, biospheric, climate, oceanic, or geological research. Similarly for USAF and other military remote sensing satellites.
NSF, USGS, and other agencies conduct ground- and sea-based Earth science research. But they don’t put up space-based remote sensing research platforms.
There’s no savings to be had here. For better or worse, there’s no other US government agency that does what NASA’s Earth science program does — space-based remote sensing research of Earth. If you think that has merit, which you claimed it does above, then giving that assignment to a different agency is going to require the transfer of the budget for NASA’s Earth science program to that agency. It’s not going to free up funding for human space flight or any other NASA activity. In fact, it may cost more and create a net drain on the federal budget depending on how much of NASA’s Earth remote sensing instrument and spacecraft development capabilities have to be recreated in the other agency. (Heck, even NOAA relies on NASA GSFC to manage its remote sensing satellite builds.)
“.. nor does it protect the programs from substantial cuts. You are not thinking clearly.”
It may or may not. But your arguments for making cuts are still based on falsehoods and hold no water.
Moreover, the argument is a moot point if its advocates, like Adams and Olson, can’t obtain a modicum of legislative competence and figure out the difference between their budget and appropriations committees.
Sigh…
well I for one started laughing at the post you put up after you had the Falcon 9 second stage spinning out of control
An understandable conclusion given the lack of information coming out of SpaceX at the time.
The latest portion of the Earth rendered uninhabitable this week
There have been more people killed as the direct result of this tsunami than there have even been injured in all the nuclear plant accidents that have ever occured, by far. Fukishima is a mess, but the only real lesson to be learned is don’t build nuclear plants on the coast 50 miles away from active subduction zone. We need cheap electrical power.
Florida Today last fall endorsed Adams’ opponent in the Congressional election. They wrote that Adams’ “lack of knowledge about NASA is appalling.”
During an interview with FLORIDA TODAY’s editorial board the day the House voted on the bill that set NASA’s course for at least a generation, Adams hadn’t even read the measure and did not know any of its specifics.
She also had no idea of the key details in state legislation to spur space initiatives here, or of the many efforts underway to diversify the Brevard economy to create post-shuttle jobs.
Last December, she published a guest column in the Daytona Beach News-Journal in which she claimed U.S. astronauts were being forced to fly on Chinese rockets.
So her inability to grasp even the basics of current U.S. space policy are consistent with her behavior before taking office.
amightywind wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
An understandable conclusion given the lack of information coming out of SpaceX at the time.
I’m sure if you were an investor, employee of SpaceX or directly involved with the interface between NASA and SpaceX, you could get detailed engineering data but since you’re not any of them, they don’t need to disclose anything to you. Why would SpaceX disclose confidential intellectual property to the general public and its competitors without an NDA. Yes, I know the taxpayer contributed some money but nothing compared to similar programs. I haven’t heard NASA complaining about disclosure of data from SpaceX. Do you have evidence?
So do any of the proposed funding levels for SLS/MPCV match actual costs. The strange thing is NASA proposed costs are usually under the actual costs and NASA says they can’t do it successfully for the amount Congress is proposing with the limitation given to NASA. How can anyone expect this to succeed? Do supporters of SLS/MPCV expect Congress to increase funding in the future? Congress wants it ready by 2016? What is the argument that this program will succeed? What is the criteria for success?
amightywind wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
“An understandable conclusion given the lack of information coming out of SpaceX at the time.”
So why the rush to judgement? Did you have a printing deadline? Did you bet money on the outcome? Why couldn’t you wait for the facts instead of making false statements?
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously…
GuessWho wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 11:41 am
“Having spent a number of years within the beltway, when NASA comes up in discussion it is the context of HSF. Reality is that NASA is synonymous with HSF.”
Fortunately, our leadership is bound by laws rather than your reality or perceived synonymousness. Actually, when Congress comes up these days, it is usually in the context of disfunctionality and cluelessness. So maybe Congress is doing what is expected of it! Never thought of it that way. Also, a recent well documented study study (Dittmar Associates) showed that when NASA’s budget comes up in public discussion, it is perceived to approach that of the Defense Department. So the reality is that NASA is synonymous with huge federal expenditures. But where then are they hiding all that cash???
BEO HSF is the single most critical goal for insuring the survival of the human race. Only when there are self-sustaining colonies off world will there be an effective safeguard against an extinction level event. Kepler telescope data indicates one in twenty star systems have a planet in the goldilocks zone. This is a mind boggling figure that makes the Fermi paradox the warning signal that should be mobilizing the entire planet. If we are too stupid to survive we will go the way of all the other not-intelligent-enough species who we should be hearing with radio telescopes. There is something preventing intelligent life from advancing past a certain stage. I will not presume to say what it is but I will definitely presume to say we have been warned and if we ignore it we may not be here much longer. HLV’s are required for BEO-HSF. If we let our HLV infrastructure disappear in the interest of somebody making a buck we will then be in much worse situation than we are right now. Sidemount cargo can be retained for a pittance of the DOD budget. I have zero respect for the people who understand what I am stating but want to see their space station vacation fantasy come true despite the threat.
The fuel depots will not work, the inferior lift vehicles will not work; only nuclear power can push the massive radiation shields necessary. Sidemount has the ability to put fissionables on a lunar trajectory as safely as possible by adapting the Orion LAS system. And the moon has the water to fill up the required radiation shields.
There is no flexible path- this is the only way we can go without being trapped in LEO for decades or more.
I read an article many years about the earl evolution of dinosaurs titled “escape from stupid world.” They escaped only to be destroyed because they were not smart enough.
Most of the people posting on this site are selecting us out of existence and need to adapt to a more urgent situation. Does anyone agree?
> But where then are they hiding all that cash???
Area 51 and Lake Vostok(*).
(*) http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm
Hi VS –
“Only when there are self-sustaining colonies off world will there be an effective safeguard against an extinction level event.”
Sorry, but no.
Only when there is an effective safeguard against an extinction level event will there be an effective safeguard against an extinction level event.
That safeguard will require the use of space based instruments, and the best of those appears likely to have to be located on the Moon, as per NASA Langley’s CAPS study.
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
“Kepler telescope data indicates one in twenty star systems have a planet in the goldilocks zone.”
There is more to making a planet habitable than just being in the Habitable Zone (HZ), and so far we only have inconclusive data on the planets that all of our telescopes have been finding. It’s too soon to make conclusions, or (even more silly) commit NASA to a particular launch platform.
“There is something preventing intelligent life from advancing past a certain stage.”
I have a witty comeback to that statement, but suffice it to say that Jeff’s blog is for Space Politics, so I think we should stick to that.
“The fuel depots will not work”
So far you seem to rely on a “lack of faith-based” philosophy regarding fuel depots, and not one grounded in facts. However, if we don’t develop the ability to transfer solids, liquids and gases in space, then we’ll never make it off this planet.
“inferior lift vehicles will not work”
That kind of goes without saying, since inferior lift vehicles will not succeed in their mission. However all of the current generation of lift vehicles don’t seem to have that problem, so you’re debating a problem that doesn’t exist. Again.
“Most of the people posting on this site are selecting us out of existence and need to adapt to a more urgent situation. Does anyone agree?”
At this time, no. But the people you need to convince are those that hold the pursue strings in Congress, so get busy.
amightywind wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 8:38 am
“In the coming months you can expect a huge battle to decide what NASA’s core mission is. Large parts of NASA will be cut or transfered to other agencies.”
Long overdue. Then comes NASA safely tucked under the wing of the DoD as a ‘national security’ asset. The quicker consolidation of space operations occurs, the quicker budgets will smooth out and realistic mid and long term planning will take root. repeated CRs only prolongs the waste of time and gap to come. But Ryan’s a hatchetman for the GOP. And the right wing is not a friend of space. Targeting climate change, killing off Big Bird or trying to manage social issues satisfies the Bible thumping base who relish rejecting the sciences, but does nothing for space. Conservatives oppose progress and want to take us back to the times of Coolidge– (and, as evidenced since 2008, Hoover as well) and in the workplace, the times of Dickens. And for the sciences, to the visions in the scriptures, not the visions of Wells, Verne– or Von Braun.
@Major Tom wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
“NOAA is an operational agency. Its doesn’t put up new research instruments. Its satellites provide data for weather prediction, land use, and other applications, not for atmospheric, biospheric, climate, oceanic, or geological research. Similarly for USAF and other military remote sensing satellites.”
They will do what is necessary- and what they are directed to do– particularly the USAF. They will salute smartly and follow the directives of their civilian overseers.
The fuel depots will not work
Of course they will work, propellant transfer has worked for more than thirty years.
the inferior lift vehicles will not work
25-30mT is not inferior lift, skyscrapers are built from pieces this size and less. And launch vehicles capable of that have been flying for quite some time, unlike an HLV which may never fly.
only nuclear power can push the massive radiation shields necessary.
Perhaps, but you don’t need an HLV to launch a reactor.
Sidemount has the ability to put fissionables on a lunar trajectory as safely as possible by adapting the Orion LAS system.
I doubt the Orion LAS has anything special to offer, and even if it did it could also be used on an EELV. Probably even easier than off the side of an 8m tank.
And the moon has the water to fill up the required radiation shields.
So has the Earth…
Let’s face it, you simply want an SDLV, and all the rest is just a bunch of silly rationalisations that have been discredited many, many times before on this forum. Why don’t you just tell us why you really want that SDLV instead of inventing silly pretexts?
Not that it matters but the 6 month CR will also be a CR. But the difference between the 3 week CR and the 6 month CR is that the 6 month CR will deal with all of the outstanding issues (relating to NASA and others) that are being put on standby in the short term CR.
Actually. Nevermind my post. Re-reading your article, I see that by “last CR”, you meant the next (6 months) CR should be the last one which is accurate.
I’m sure if you were an investor, employee of SpaceX or directly involved with the interface between NASA and SpaceX, you could get detailed engineering data but since you’re not any of them, they don’t need to disclose anything to you.
Yeah, you’re right. I’m only their customer. Boeing, Lockmart, and Orbital provide excellent real time data for their commercial launches. What’s the secret?
amightywind wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Yeah, you’re right. I’m only their customer…
have you bought a launch with SpaceX?
how are you their customer?
Robert G. Oler
What satellite/payload are they launching for you? This I gotta hear
amightywind wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 9:42 am
“Yeah, you’re right. I’m only their customer.”
They didn’t have a customer for the first Falcon 9 launch (the one we’re talking about), so I guess you’re making stuff up again. Do you ever tell the truth?
“-you seem to rely on a “lack of faith-based†philosophy regarding fuel depots, and not one grounded in facts.”
“It’s too soon to make conclusions, or (even more silly) commit NASA to a particular launch platform.”
“Let’s face it, you simply want an SDLV, and all the rest is just a bunch of silly rationalisations that have been discredited many, many times before on this forum.”
Unbelievable ignorance.
Has anyone ever noticed that DSCSA and amightywind never seem to argue with each other, despite being in total opposition to each other politically (with the exception for a shared hatred of SpaceX)?
Politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed…
They didn’t have a customer for the first Falcon 9 launch
SpaceX is trying to qualify to deliver cargo to the ISS, a facility primarily owned by the United States. So I am interested in real data to measure their progress. Can I please assume some mental agility on your part?
Has anyone ever noticed that DSCSA and amightywind never seem to argue with each other, despite being in total opposition to each other politically
Most people here write something intelligent from time to time. If you seek to curry favor with me you should try harder. Most of the posters on this sight are garden variety liberals who like the idea of a humbled America and a weak NASA. A few of us, less than 10%, (me, VirgilSamms, DCSCA, Whittington…) prefer a traditional NASA. The odd thing is those percentages are reversed in the population at large. So I don’t feel it is a waste of time arguing with liberals and avoiding the Censor. I provide a dose of reality to your echo chamber.
amightywind wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
“Quoting chapter and verse does not change the fact that earth science research is duplicated across agencies, nor does it protect the programs from substantial cuts.”
Sure, earth science is done by many agencies. But what NASA does in earth science is most certainly not duplicated across agencies, as what NASA does in planetary, heliophysics and astrophysics isn’t duplicated at NSF or DoE. NSF and DoE do a lot of research in those areas, but none of it is research that only NASA has the capability to do. Heh, you want to give NSF and DoE the responsibility to do space science with satellites? That would be an unmitigated disaster. The aerospace companies who build the equipment would tie those agency managers in knots.
Actually, NASA does some bioscience too. Horrors! Let’s get NIH/HHS to shoot astronauts up in order to understand effects of weightlessness on the human body.
I suspect that almightywind considers himself SpaceX’s customer in that he is a US taxpayer and, in his mind, is therefore the guy who stumps up cash for techno-welfare of a company that, otherwise, would not exist and be incapable of surviving.
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
“And the moon has the water to fill up the required radiation shields.”
Joke for the day. Sorry, I can’t resist. What do you need to get water from the Moon? A fleet of lunar landers, elaborate mining and refining systems, propellants, comm, nav, power etc. etc. What do you need to get water from the Earth? A bucket.
Until we have a large chunk of humanity in space, the advantage of lunar water is fairly minimal. The first human trips BEO — NEOs, Mars, etc. won’t use lunar water. You can count on it.
Until we have a large chunk of humanity in space, the advantage of lunar water is fairly minimal. The first human trips BEO — NEOs, Mars, etc. won’t use lunar water. You can count on it.
Besides, use of lunar water does not necessitate the use of HLVs, nor is such use particularly beneficial. If anything use of lunar water is an additional argument against the need for HLVs, as if we needed more arguments. The less you have to launch from Earth, the less the is for an HLV to do.
Lunar water, radiation shielding and nuclear propulsion as arguments for an HLV are total non-sequiturs.
“So I don’t feel it is a waste of time arguing with liberals and avoiding the Censor. I provide a dose of reality to your echo chamber.”
I am as liberal as they come; yet I believe in HLV’s, Nuclear Energy (in space) and several other concepts that more conservatives seem to hold dear. It is all a matter of education- just like all the liberals sing about. Educate the public on things like impact threats and cosmic radiation and we won’t have this idiotic dismantling of the HLV infrastructure.
Windy,
A few of us, less than 10%, (me, VirgilSamms, DCSCA, Whittington…) prefer a traditional NASA.
DCSCA wants to kill the idea of non-NASA access to LEO, and to have NASA to become part of the DoD. Not too traditional.
GaryChurch wants a HLV (sidemount!) to build an Orion (1970s) style spaceship to go and blast all the asteroids before they can blast us, again not too traditional.
Whittington wants anything that is branded Republican, proposed by a Republican President. Oh well, what can you say about that?
You want anything that comes with dual 5 segment ATK boosters, and could care less if we ever actually DO anything with all of the knowledge and technology NASA has developed over the last 40 years.
Your positions and statements are so beyond ludicrous that I’m beginning to believe that you are an employee of SpaceX, charged with helping us hone our arguments FOR a seriously creative and manageable space program utilizing all that the COTS and CCDev programs have brought to the table.
Even if that’s not your intent, that IS the effect of your comments. Anyone reading all the refutations of your comments is amazingly well grounded in the reality of what NASA can do, what it CAN’T do, and how the wealth of our country’s aerospace engineers and companies are likely to advance us as a space-faring species.
Thanks for that.
“Lunar water, radiation shielding and nuclear propulsion as arguments for an HLV are total non-sequiturs.”
Why? Because you say so?
Tell me how many flights it will take to put 500 tons of water someplace outside the magnetosphere where nuclear propulsion can be used safely?
With your inferior lift vehicles it cannot be done. Not without decades and billions spent developing needless fuel depot and transfer technologies. An HLV can send fissionables on a lunar trajectory within a few years. The whole private space concept is a deck of cards built on one premise- that the ISS will be their money machine. It will fall apart soon enough. As soon as the jig is up and they find out there is no cheap- space flight is inherently expensive.
You want anything that comes with dual 5 segment ATK boosters, and could care less if we ever actually DO anything with all of the knowledge and technology NASA has developed over the last 40 years.
I liked some of a Boeing options that had a modified ET with 4 RS-68’s launching an Orion. No SRB’s. But in general the stage-and-a-half shuttle design has been a great success. SRBs are a big part of that. I am not sure what knowledge you are referring to. It doesn’t look like we are doing any more science on the ISS then we were on Skylab. I think ISS is a dead end. A modest space station effort wouldn’t bother me. But ISS is vast and bloated way out of proportion of the value of science that can ever be done using it.
Whittington wants anything that is branded Republican, proposed by a Republican President. Oh well, what can you say about that?
Whittington is a fine American.
I’m beginning to believe that you are an employee of SpaceX
No, in reality I am Charlie Sheen.
If you seek to curry favor with me you should try harder.
What sane person would be trying to “curry favor” with a pseudonymous, ignorant, stupid Internet troll who can’t even spell the word “site”? To what purpose?
Bennett wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
‘DCSCA wants to kill the idea of non-NASA access to LEO, and to have NASA to become part of the DoD. Not too traditional.’
Inaccurate. No quibbles w/non-NASA access to LEO for unmanned payloads as long as they secure capital in the private sector and cease seeking government subsides on the back of taxpayers when the government has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends. And, of course, any commerical HSF not be leveraged by profiteers playing rocketeer through conservative politicans as an excuse to defund HSF planning within NASA. Because, with respect to Kraft’s op-ed some months back, commerical HSF is a ticket to no place- SpaceX et al., as championed by right wingers of the Bob Walker crowd. Reaganomics is not going to expand the human presence out into the solar system. Sliding NASA under DoD is simply a matter of being pragmatic in the Age of Austerity. It’s not something ‘desired’ although, given the history of space and rocket development within the military services before NASA was created, it’s not that non-traditional, going back to your ‘roots’ so to speak. Consolidation of space operations is good economics and may give NASA a shot at maintaining some kind of protected budgeting for mid and long range planning.
amightywind wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
“ So I am interested in real data to measure their progress.”
This is the silliest justification you have come up with so far – that as a taxpayer, every single company that does business with the U.S. Government owes you a full accounting of every piece of data they produce.
A better analogy is that you’re more like an investor in a company (the U.S. Government), but the most detailed information you’ll see is the annual report. And if you’re ever read a corporate annual report, you’ll know that there is no detailed information that is provided. And that’s how much you are owed – nothing.
“Can I please assume some mental agility on your part?”
You can, but unfortunately I don’t think I can assume the same from you…
Tell me how many flights it will take to put 500 tons of water someplace outside the magnetosphere where nuclear propulsion can be used safely?
Sufficiently many to fund commercial RLVs. But even if you were only interested in the direct effects to NASA and disregarding its mandate to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space”, then the number of flights is not what counts, but the cost and the time required.
And if you were going to use lunar water, you’d need considerably fewer flights than if you were going to launch them from Earth so if anything use of lunar water argues against the alleged need for an HLV. Think man. Were you going to launch the HLV from the moon???
With your inferior lift vehicles it cannot be done. Not without decades and billions spent developing needless fuel depot and transfer technologies.
No such development is necessary. Existing launch vehicles and existing propellant transfer are more than enough. And even cryogenic depots wouldn’t not take decades to develop. Billions and one decade is something I could believe, unless NASA were in charge in which case it would consume many billions and never produce anything of value.
An HLV can send fissionables on a lunar trajectory within a few years.
No it cannot. First of all there will not be an HLV within a few years (unless you count EELV Phase as such as I would). And there certainly won’t be a nuclear transfer stage. That my friend is something that would take many billions and probably more than a decade. And probably something that is far beyond the technical capability of today’s MSFC, leaving their managerial incompetence aside. And then there is the strong (and unfounded) political resistance to anything nuclear.
I don’t think there is a faster way to put a large payload onto an escape trajectory than using EOR with cryogenic EELV upper stages for transport from LEO to L1/L2 followed by fueling of the spacecraft with storable propellant from there onward. I also think there is no faster way to create a large and fiercely competitive commercial market for propellant in orbit. I have been looking for alternatives and that’s why I’m advocating what I’m advocating.
The whole private space concept is a deck of cards built on one premise- that the ISS will be their money machine.
No it’s not, look at the suborbital people including Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic who has many people signed up already and look at what Bigelow is doing. What ISS can do is to share its crew transport infrastructure with emerging commercial spaceflight, thus freeing them from the requirement to bear the development costs themselves. That in itself may be enough to make Bigelow’s business case close and that itself would both extend manned spaceflight beyond the ISS thus further disproving your claim. It can also save the taxpayers money and risk since fair, competitive and redundant procurement works better than socialist command economies and government design bureaus.
As soon as the jig is up and they find out there is no cheap- space flight is inherently expensive.
If the large demand for launch services inherent in an exploration program (propellant, radiation shielding, consumables) is channelled through a fair, competitive and redundant procurement process (as US law already requires apart from ad-hoc exemptions by special interests in Congress) then it will lead to commercial development of RLVs or some other form of cheap lift.
It will likely not be cheap enough for ordinary people in our lifetimes, but it could be one to two orders of magnitude cheaper. Even if you don’t care about commercial spaceflight, that is still something that could NASA to launch the vast quantities of propellant, radiation shielding and consumables it would need for serious exploration very cheaply compared to what’s possible today.
No quibbles w/non-NASA access to LEO for unmanned payloads as long as they secure capital in the private sector and cease seeking government subsides on the back of taxpayers when the government has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends.
Commercial crew doesn’t cost NASA extra money, it will cost NASA less money than SLS + Orion. You are again making claims that are not merely false, but the opposite of the truth. And in addition to costing less money, it will also provide additional benefits: commercial and international clients could also use the commercial crew transport infrastructure. In other words, more bang for fewer bucks. It’s a no brainer.
NASA should focus on exploration and deep-space spacecraft, not earth to orbit or crew return.
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
“Tell me how many flights it will take to put 500 tons of water someplace outside the magnetosphere where nuclear propulsion can be used safely?”
One can say very confidently that it will take fewer flights to bring those 500 tons of water from the Earth than it will be to set up a mining and extraction program, and bring them up from the Moon. Where lunar water comes into the picture is when we’re doing MANY flights with people to Mars. So, are we talking colonization, or what?
amightywind wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
“No, in reality I am Charlie Sheen.”
Well, now things are perfectly clear. Robert G. Oler
amightywind wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
“It doesn’t look like we are doing any more science on the ISS then we were on Skylab.”
That’s because you’re not really looking.
Skylab was a nice pathfinder for determining what a future space station should/could do, but it was not packed with much scientific capability, especially since it was using 60’s era technology (i.e. practically no computerized equipment).
A simple search turns up lots of science happing on the ISS, even going back to 2005 when the station was still under construction:
– Structure of Paramagnetic Aggregates from Colloidal Emulsions (InSPACE)
– Cell Biotechnology Operations Support Systems Fluid Dynamics Investigation (CBOSS – FDI)
– Binary Colloidal Alloy Test – 3 (BCAT – 3)
– Protein Crystal Growth Monitoring by Digital Holographic Microscope for the International Space Station (PromISS 4)
– Protein Crystal Growth Single-locker Thermal Enclosure System (PCG-STES)
– Chromosomal Aberrations in Blood Lymphocytes of Astronauts (Chromosome), which studies space radiation on humans
Even issues like spending more time performing preventive or corrective maintenance on the payload racks than planned are teaching us what it really takes to live and work in space. If people think that we can design and launch exploration vessels without ringing out the bugs ahead of time, they are really ignorant of reality.
And if we’re going to be spending a lot of time away from Earth, we need to develop and master ways to recycle just about everything. The ISS has shown us that our assumptions about how easy it is to recycle urine were way off, and so the ISS has become a great testing ground for our next generation of space systems.
You can’t test zero-G systems in a 1-G environment, so where do you propose to do it if we don’t have the ISS? Weird.
You can’t test zero-G systems in a 1-G environment, so where do you propose to do it if we don’t have the ISS?
I’d be surprised if a Bigelow station didn’t turn out to be significantly cheaper. Assuming the station itself materialises of course.
You can’t test zero-G systems in a 1-G environment, so where do you propose to do it if we don’t have the ISS? Weird.
I’d be surprised if a Bigelow station didn’t turn out to be significantly cheaper. Assuming the station itself materialises of course.
Of course you don’t need a million pound leviathan manned by six people and costing over $100 billion to do such trivial experiments. Eventually I think this absurd notion will be a difficult one to sell to congress. A modest Bigelow station makes infinitely more sense. With any luck the ISS will suffer an unrecoverable failure soon after the end of the shuttle program and the problem will solve itself.
amightywind wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
“A modest Bigelow station makes infinitely more sense.”
You’re hilarious. Do you even realize what you say sometimes?
Bigelow won’t even start launching his space-stations-for-rent until there are at least two commercial crew providers. Why? First of all he wants redundancy, but secondly he won’t rely on government-run systems that only launch to serve the whims of Congress.
So here is your dilemma. If you want Bigelow stations to replace the ISS, then you have to promote commercial crew.
How about that for a cruel twist of irony…
@Coastal Ron wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 1:41 am
RE-amightywind wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
“ So I am interested in real data to measure their progress.â€
“This is the silliest justification you have come up with so far – that as a taxpayer, every single company that does business with the U.S. Government owes you a full accounting of every piece of data they produce. A better analogy is that you’re more like an investor in a company (the U.S. Government), but the most detailed information you’ll see is the annual report. And if you’re ever read a corporate annual report, you’ll know that there is no detailed information that is provided. And that’s how much you are owed – nothing.”
ROFLMAOPIP. You’re good at spending other people’s money and by youe own words persenting a position to scare off any investors. In actual fact, taxpayers ARE owed an accounting. And as to annual reports in the private sector, liars can figure and figures can lie. Suggest you review the ‘details’ in those issued by Bernie Madoff and the financial institutions on Wall Street. Plenty of details– just false and misleading.
amightywind wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
With any luck the ISS will suffer an unrecoverable failure soon after the end of the shuttle program and the problem will solve itself.
Only an idiot would wish for this.
If you think that such an event would give you that godzilla rocket, moon base or mars mission you so desire, you are a bloody fool.
A far more likely scenario is an indefinite suspension of all US HSF activities and possibly the end of government HSF in its current form.
Is that something you are prepared to risk, in addition to the 6 lives of the station crew, just to sate your petty and irrational disdain for the ISS?
amightywind wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Of course you don’t need a million pound leviathan manned by six people and costing over $100 billion to do such trivial experiments. Eventually I think this absurd notion will be a difficult one to sell to congress. A modest Bigelow station makes infinitely more sense.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I’d be surprised if a Bigelow station didn’t turn out to be significantly cheaper. Assuming the station itself materialises of course.
The Bigelow station as currently planned doesn’t come even close to the ISS’ capability. To bring one up to basic ISS functionality, if that is even possible, will not be cheap by a long shot.
Could it be cheaper than ISS? Possible. But we have much to learn and little time to lose and ISS is finished and operational now.
But we have much to learn and little time to lose and ISS is finished and operational now.
Please, help me understand what that is? What is petty is the science return for the fantastic amounts of money spent. ISS scientific results are orders of magnitude less significant than those of the unmanned missions like Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer, WMAP, Kepler…
The US is now spending good money after bad to the tune of $5 billion a year. For what? To prop up the despots in Russia? In the meantime our access to orbit is gone.
The Bigelow station as currently planned doesn’t come even close to the ISS’ capability.
Same microgravity. Similar facilities. Similar power. How would it fall short?
Could it be cheaper than ISS? Possible. But we have much to learn and little time to lose and ISS is finished and operational now.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m sympathetic to the ISS, but its critics are right that it is a white elephant. Nevertheless I hope it will remain operational for the foreseeable future, until a Bigelow station (or an equivalent by an as yet unknown competitor) is operational. But in principle I’d support abandoning the ISS and even commercial crew for an exploration program centered around fair, competitive and redundant procurement of launch services for propellant. I think that would give a much bigger boost to commercial development of space than current plans for commercial crew. It’s not an even remotely believable scenario of course.
Only an idiot would wish for this.
Or someone who is not sympathetic to government funding for manned spaceflight. Or even any kind of civil spaceflight. As a space enthusiast I like to see manned spaceflight, but as a proponent of limited government I cannot justify spending taxpayers’ money on it. Not everybody may agree with that, but I think we have to admit it is at least a reasonable point of view. A fairly widely held one too I think.
Controlled deorbiting of ISS due to a unfixable fault would hopefully do one thing : it would finally wake up the public to the fact that they spent $100B to put the thing up there with no return on that investment, and clearly spell out the ludicrousness of government-operated human spaceflight endeavors.
amightywind wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Same microgravity. Similar facilities. Similar power. How would it fall short?
Off the top of my head?
-Robotics (Canadarm, Dextre, Kibo RMS, 2 x Strela cargo cranes)
-Exposed Facilities (Kibo EF with its own airlock, various all over)
-180° Earth Observation capability (Cupola)
-Redundant EVA airlocks.
-Docking capacity for multiple visiting spacecraft, currently up to 6 I believe.
amightywind wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“[Bigelow Stations have] Same microgravity. Similar facilities. Similar power. How would it fall short?”
This is from the same person that thinks Skylab was more capable for science experiments than the ISS. Ignorance is bliss for you.
Sure, LEO has the same microgravity. But unless you’re paying for all the additional science equipment, the costs to get it there, and the extra solar panels that it will take to power them, then no, a basic Bigelow station is not the same in volume or capability as the ISS. Bigelow is offering the equivalent of basic office space – you have to furnish it.
Now maybe you could make a case to transfer ISS equipment over to multiple Bigelow stations, but remember you have to support commercial crew in order for Bigelow to launch stations. There’s that cruel irony again…
“ISS scientific results are orders of magnitude less significant than those of the unmanned missions like Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer, WMAP, Kepler…”
All of these are observatories, and none contribute to advancing our ability to live and work in space. If you want to develop and test new space hardware, or study life & physical sciences, observatories can’t do that – you need a facility in space, which happens to be the ISS for now.
And since you have no idea what happens on the ISS, this list should give you a start to find out more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_ISS
“But we have much to learn and little time to lose and ISS is finished and operational now.”
amightywind wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“Please, help me understand what that is? What is petty is the science return for the fantastic amounts of money spent. ISS scientific results are orders of magnitude less significant than those of the unmanned missions like Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer, WMAP, Kepler…”
Exactly right. But I’ll help you understand. The ISS is not about science. It will do good science, but not earthshaking science. At least not earthshaking science that couldn’t have been done more cheaply somewhere else. Human factors notwithstanding, It is a sad delusion that the science done on ISS might in any way wholly justify the expense.
But what ISS did do (and is doing) is exercise our ability to build BIG things in free space. A real pity that Congress doesn’t understand this. That’s a skill set that will pay off handily as we reach further out. It’s a fundamental skill set for space exploration that no other space enterprise (not even for DoD, that we know of) has ever achieved. One of the abysmal design constructs of Constellation was that it didn’t involve building big things in free space, capitalizing on what we learned from ISS.
Of course, to the extent that one considers ISS finished, we’ve effectively stopped exercising that skill set. By that measure, it’s time to dunk it. But exercising of capabilities in in-space telerobotics, AR&D, ECLS, etc. etc. is still ongoing, using ISS as a platform, and these capabilities too should pay off handily. I guess it is fair to challenge that.
I myself used to be very negative about ISS because of the science it wouldn’t enable. But you have to look beyond that to see the value.
Martijn Meijering
I think you are being a little unfair. I will grant that ISS isn’t what it could/should be for the money we spent. But, unlike Constellation, ISS has something going for it, which is it has existing real estate.
Frankly, I would argue against dumping it, at least for the foreseeable future, is because I think the push towards commercializing/privatizing it will prove very interesting, and will be curcial to determining what price point is needed for human spaceflight industry to take off.
amightywind –
If I can add on to what Doug Lassiter was saying, there is something even more important we are getting from ISS. We have learned a ton on how to do in space construction, but now we need to figure out at what price point is the maximum HSF can be at for there to be viable commercial markets. Obviously if its $1 B to put a human in space, there is no commercial market, and conversely, if its $100 to put a human in space, there is a huge market. But we don’t know that maximum amount, and until we do, we really won’t be able to do much of anything in space.
Compare this to the Intelsat days, prior to PanAmSat taking off. That is what we are looking at
amighty wind,
Even in terms of ECLS, the ISS is a great advance over Skylab.
Skylab simply loaded up the station with enough supplies for three, three month, three man crews. No recycling. Just enough water and LIOH scrubber filters to last. The trouble with this is that the longer the mission the more and more stuff you need. Can you imagine the amount of mass (and space) that 2 years worth of water, oxygen, LIOH canisters would take up?
The ISS main CO2 removal system is regenerative. Meaning it does not need LIOH scrubber filters. The ISS has some as back up but not the main C02 removal system. LIOH filters take up a lot of cabin space as you need more and more of them for longer missions. The shuttle was the first to use such a small system to extend the amount of time it could stay in space by reducing its need for LIOH cartages and Orion would have had an improved one.
Skylab like the early shuttle and Apollo used those cartages exclusively. ISS space suits also feature a regenerative C02 scrubber. (Although non regenerative ones are available for longer spacewalks or if the recharging system fails).
The ISS has a water recycling system that can cut the ISS need for resupply of water by up to 65%. Granted the system can be a little flaky but this is an advance over previous NASA spacecraft that have no recycling at all.
The ISS also uses water to generate oxygen. This is more lightweight and safer than carrying around big tanks of oxygen for the crew. It has oxygen tanks as back up and for space walks but the main system uses water.
The water recycling system has an interesting twist. The oxygen generation system creates hydrogen which is dumped overboard. However with a recent addition the hydrogen is combined with CO2 from the crew (which had previously been dumped overboard) to produce methane and water. The methane is dumped and the water is recovered. This basically closes the oxygen loop as the recovered water can either be used for drinking or to generate oxygen.
With those technologies a moon base or a mars base could do with 65% less water for the crew and need much fewer to no LIOH canisters. It would also need much less oxygen to be sent from earth (or produced via ISRU). That is one of the gifts the ISS brings to spaceflight.
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
But what ISS did do (and is doing) is exercise our ability to build BIG things in free space.
That’s a huge technical reason, but the real reason is pure politics, international politics that is.
For it is what it’s been accused of being here on this forum, an orbital United Nations.
Which despite of it’s detractors, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because human beings are political animals.
And Americans and the Russians have been partners on all things space, secretly and openly going back to the depths of the Cold War.
Consider that as one will.
I thought current plans were for Bigelow to dock some of his inflatables up to ISS for further study? This process will allow a further evolution of both systems. Lets see what happens.
“What is petty is the science return for the fantastic amounts of money spent.’
A similar line can be used for Constellation, HLV or a lunar base.
Dennis Berube
Thats a proposed plan. The official, current plans, as they relate to Bigelow, is to dock 2 Sundancer modules & 1BAA-330 Module in the 2014-2015 timeframe
Re: ISS
Y’all seem to forget one tiny detail about ISS. A great technological feat indeed.
But ISS is also teaching us how to survive in a confined enviroment for months at a time. A crew of 6, does that not tell you something? You may want to survey NASA papers about Mars exploration for example. A crew of 6, if memory serves, is the average ideal size for crew in terms of human factors.
There is more than technology and science if you want to explore space with humans…
Martijn Meijering wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
r someone who is not sympathetic to government funding for manned spaceflight. Or even any kind of civil spaceflight. As a space enthusiast I like to see manned spaceflight, but as a proponent of limited government I cannot justify spending taxpayers’ money on it. Not everybody may agree with that, but I think we have to admit it is at least a reasonable point of view. A fairly widely held one too I think.
Fair enough, it’s a valid viewpoint and certainly worthy of debate.
However even if you’re opposed to ISS, manned spaceflight or civil spaceflight in general, the only reasonable thing to do is to wish for it to be deorbited in an orderly and controlled fashion, not to mention giving Russia, ESA and other interested parties the opportunity to salvage modules to continue without US participation.
But that wasn’t what he said.
To wish for the loss of ISS through catastrophic failure is irresponsible and idiotic. At minimum it shows a disgusting disregard not only for the lives of the crew, but also for the people who might suddenly find themselves in the impact zone of a couple hundred tons of space station.
amightywind wrote:
Same microgravity. Similar facilities. Similar power. How would it fall short?
I can’t find any source at all on the amount of power Bigelow’s proposed space station would generate, but I highly doubt it would be nearly as much as the ISS.
The eight American solar panels on the ISS generate 32.8 kW of raw power each, for a total of 262 kW. Due to orbital night, battery charging and discharging, and power conditioning losses, this is reduced to 84 kW end-user electrical power.
That dwarfs any previous spacecraft. Do you have any credible source stating that Bigelow’s station would develop similar power?
Das Boese wrote:
-Robotics (Canadarm, Dextre, Kibo RMS, 2 x Strela cargo cranes)
-Exposed Facilities (Kibo EF with its own airlock, various all over)
-180° Earth Observation capability (Cupola)
-Redundant EVA airlocks.
-Docking capacity for multiple visiting spacecraft, currently up to 6 I believe.
Add to that bandwidth, with a continuous 300 Mbit/sec feed through TDRS available, and mass throughput, with large pre-integrated payload racks that can fit through the CBM and can be carried up (via Shuttle and HTV) and down (Shuttle).
Mike
common sense wrote @ March 21st, 2011 at 11:52 am
“ISS is also teaching us how to survive in a confined enviroment for months at a time. A crew of 6, does that not tell you something?”
Yes, but nothing that couldn’t be established FAR more cheaply on the Earth by locking people in a can. In fact, there are many examples of that kind of work. As to survival in a weightless environment for months at a time, that’s of more unique significance.
Also, let’s be careful about the ECLS “gifts” that ISS brings to spaceflight. Space qualified regenerative systems life support systems don’t necessarily need an ISS to test them out, do they?
It isn’t about what ISS does for us. It’s about what ISS does for us that can’t be done much more inexpensively in other ways.
even if you’re opposed to ISS, manned spaceflight or civil spaceflight in general, the only reasonable thing to do is to wish for it to be deorbited in an orderly and controlled fashion
Good point.
@common sense wrote @ March 21st, 2011 at 11:52 am
Re: ISS
“Y’all seem to forget one tiny detail about ISS. A great technological feat indeed.”
Not really. See Saylut, Skylab … and MIR for details. The ISS is just a more expensive and bigger ‘model kit’ with more pieces required for construction. It represents past planning from an era that has ended. It has been little more than a works program for the aerospace industry for two decades. And as far as the taxpayers are concerned, it has yet to deliver any significant return for the investment.
common sense wrote @ March 21st, 2011 at 11:52 am
Not just 6 people, but 6 people with different nationalities and diverse backgrounds; scientists, engineers, military.
@ Doug Lassiter wrote @ March 21st, 2011 at 2:35 pm
“Yes, but nothing that couldn’t be established FAR more cheaply on the Earth by locking people in a can. ”
No not really. Unless you have a deep sea station for example. And you would not have the effects of micro/no gravity.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ March 21st, 2011 at 2:35 pm
“It isn’t about what ISS does for us. It’s about what ISS does for us that can’t be done much more inexpensively in other ways.”
Space is hard, and space is very expensive. So far all the previous space stations never created an enduring presence. The previous station before the ISS, the Soviet/Russian Mir, lasted for 15 years before succumbing to a combination of age and lack of funds.
Discussion about the cost and use of the ISS are all valid, but what ever it took to get us to this point with the ISS in LEO is really immaterial. The money is spent, whether it cost $20B or $200B. No one is going to pay us back if we don’t want to use it anymore. The real choice is what do we do from here?
The ISS currently weighs about 920,000 lbs. If we wanted to put up an equivalent amount of mass today using Delta IV Heavy, and assuming $300M/flight, it would cost at least $6B just to get it up there.
Why does that matter? With the ISS costing somewhere north of $100B to construct, what it shows is that the cost of building stuff in space is NOT being held back by existing transportation. In fact when Falcon 9 Heavy comes on line, that same cost drops from $6B to $2B. That’s right, more than 1 Million lbs of mass in LEO for less than $2B. What is stopping us from building more space stations is the cost of the actual space hardware.
So why do people want to throw away perfectly good space hardware that in some cases is still “new” (the ISS)? This doesn’t make fiscal sense, and it doesn’t make expanding into space any easier, or quicker. If you don’t like what the ISS is doing, then fine, change it’s mission and reconfigure it. But you’re not going to expand into space any quicker by dumping it in the ocean.
We have to get away from the mindset that every mission to space has to be with new equipment. Here on Earth, after we have built an expensive new building, it may go through periodic changes of ownership and function. Today a laboratory, tomorrow a mixed use facility, then office space – the buildings and infrastructure are not torn down and rebuilt every time a new tenant takes over.
So I think any talk of dumping the ISS, for any reason, is pretty silly. A better conversation to have would be what do we build next, and whether we use the ISS components as a starting point, or build something completely new.
What’s everyone think?
Doug you would need a space station of some kind to test thoose systems out under real conditions and given US politics the ISS or some very large space station would have been built.
The US would not have tolerated having a smaller space station than the Russian MIR in the cold war.
“it has yet to deliver any significant return for the investment.d”
How dare you!
That is the space station vacation with Elon destination you are blaspheming; it is the cash cow of private space.
This crowd will make up anything to justify it’s existence, just like they will make up anything to shout down anything that threatens their private space fantasy football dreams. Like HLV’s. Actually, anything having to do with human spaceflight that does not involve SpaceX or one of the other hobby rocketeers will get wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Someone remind me why the Atlas V is considered a hobby rocket? Or a company like Boeing is a hobby rocketeer?
Ferris Valyn wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 9:36 am
“Someone remind me why the Atlas V is considered a hobby rocket? Or a company like Boeing is a hobby rocketeer?”
Anything that isn’t an HLV to build 1,000 ton water-filled asteroid-shooting spaceships is a hobby rocket.
I thought Gary Church (i.e. VirgilSamms) had made that abundantly clear by now. In his mind, it’s literally all or nothing, and no middle ground helps or is worthwhile.
Actually, anything having to do with human spaceflight that does not involve SpaceX or one of the other hobby rocketeers will get wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Nope, the call is for fair, competitive and redundant procurement, nothing more, nothing less. Most people here are sympathetic to the entrepreneurial startups, but we’re not asking for special favours. Most of us anyway.
And personally I think the established aerospace players would stand an excellent chance of developing a commercial RLV if NASA provided a large market for propellant in orbit.
Anything that isn’t an HLV to build 1,000 ton water-filled asteroid-shooting spaceships is a hobby rocket.
Never mind that a 1,000 ton water-filled asteroid-shooting spaceship could be launched and filled with EELV class launch vehicles too.